list-modules

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional pagination', which adds some context about handling large result sets, but fails to describe key behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or the format of returned data. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all modules in a project') and adds a useful detail ('with optional pagination') without any wasted words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a list operation with pagination, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or behavioral constraints like rate limits. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking, especially compared to sibling tools that may have similar listing functions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond this by mentioning 'optional pagination', which loosely relates to the 'cursor' and 'per_page' parameters but doesn't provide additional semantic context. This meets the baseline score of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List all modules') and resource ('in a project'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes modules as 'sprints' in parentheses, adding specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-cycles' or 'list-module-issues', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'list-cycles' or 'get-module'. It mentions optional pagination, which hints at usage for large datasets, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.